How exactly does this photo change anything? Wasn't your arguement that you WERE running there but did NOT KNOW that it was not allowed? In this case it seems like the photo just confirms what you said you were doing. What are we missing?

Yes, I totally don't get this. Saying you weren't there, and saying that the metra did not meet its burden with posted signage designating the "trail" as private right-of-way are two different things.

I cannot understand leaving the court and not understanding what the verdict was or what my punishment was, either.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Yes, I totally don't get this. Saying you weren't there, and saying that the metra did not meet its burden with posted signage designating the "trail" as private right-of-way are two different things.

I cannot understand leaving the court and not understanding what the verdict was or what my punishment was, either.

The lawyer was going to try to fight it by saying that it wasn't RedBird on the tracks. Since it was proven to be him, there was no case. I don't think not knowing it was trespassing is a valid excuse. And getting them to open a complaint about the signage would probably take opening up a whole other suit against them. It was a criminal lawsuit against RedBird, not the Metra.